En
Submit your application

CCU: it is also impossible to fire a contract worker on vacation

The CCU, by its decision on the constitutional complaint in case No. 6-r(II)/2019 of 09/04/2019, categorically “forbade” employers to fire their employees who are on vacation or do not work due to temporary disability!

At the same time, the KSU noted that the situation absolutely cannot be influenced by the fact that the labor relations between the employee and the employer are formalized by an employment agreement (contract).

That is, no employee on vacation cannot be dismissed, since this is a violation of his constitutional rights. There is an exception to this rule, and it is strictly specified in legislation.

Dismissal of an employee which is on vacation is possible if the company is completely liquidated!

The reason for the promulgation of the decision of the Constitutional Court was the appeal of a citizen who was dismissed during her stay on vacation, who, by her situation, “put” before the court the issue of compliance with the Constitution with the provisions of part 3 of Art. 40 of the Labor Code of Ukraine.

Specifics and conclusions in the context of the incident

The citizen applied to the KSU with a request to review the compliance of the KU with the provisions of part three of Art. 40 of the Labor Code, which determines that the dismissal of an employee at the initiative of the employer is unacceptable if the employee is on vacation.

“The applicant pointed out in the complaint that the conclusion of the Supreme Court of Ukraine in her case was incorrect! He determined that the above provisions of the Labor Code do not apply to labor legal relations based on an employment contract. Thus, the Supreme Court of Ukraine violated her constitutional rights, since it “artificially worsened” her working conditions, referring her to a certain category of workers”.

CCU investigated the complaint and established the constitutionality of the provisions of part 3 of Art. 40 of the Labor Code, indicating to the courts of all instances that the solution of similar labor disputes should be carried out taking into account the following:

  1. Part 3 of Art. 40 of the Labor Code “guarantees” employees protection against dismissal initiated by the employer if the employee is temporarily disabled or resting on a well-deserved vacation.
  2. An employment contract is one of the forms of legalizing “urgent” labor relations, and its essential conditions (validity period, grounds for termination / termination, etc.) are agreed by the parties.
  3. The fact that the employment relationship is secured by a contract is not a legal reason for the non-application of the provisions of part 3 of Art. 40 Labor Code.
  4. It is obvious that the dismissal of a “contract worker”, which is on vacation violates his labor rights, as it discriminates against him, which is unacceptable, since labor guarantees are spelled out in the law for everyone.
  5. It follows from this that, the conditions which worsening the position of the employee in comparison with the current legislation, prescribed when drawing up the contract (employment contract) are invalid, and the dismissal is illegal.

18.09.2019

219

YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN
The child of divorced parents is an object of struggle for attention

In 99% of 100%, a divorce is a problematic event, and the help of a lawyer in a divorce is a necessity that determines the outcome of the case. The division of property is half the trouble, and the struggle for the attention of children is a real problem. Let’s leave the prefaces. Live situations […]

It is possible to change the amount of recoverable legal aid costs

On December 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of Ukraine, by its conclusion in case No. 910/4881/18, published a legal opinion on the collection and determination of the amount of legal aid costs. So, in the course of this trial, the question arose that the amount of UAH 337,665.08 of expenses for legal assistance, spent by […]

SCU has figured out the nuances of applying measures to secure a claim

The owner cannot be limited in the right to use his property due to the existence of a claim for the recognition of the lease agreement regarding this property as invalid! This decision was made by the Supreme Court of Ukraine on November 21, 2018 following the results of the proceedings in case No. 752/6255/18. […]

Can spouses divide an unauthorized built house in case of divorce?

They wanted to save money, but it turned out the other way around. The couple built a house in which they planned to live happily ever after, but the family union fell apart … In court, the question arose of how to divide the house, which, as it turned out, cannot be divided due to […]

INTERACTION WITH BAILIFF AT THE STAGE OF ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS

In the previous article, we considered one of the tools for collecting debts abroad (in the Russian Federation) – encashment settlement accounts of debtors. We will not re-list the entire toolkit. Let’s move on to the next stage of recovery – the answer to the question “how to effectively cooperate with bailiffs?”, Because the success […]

SCU: matrimonial property is not always divided equally!

The Supreme Court of Ukraine, by its decision in case 308/4390/18 of 16.12.19, determined the aspects of deviation from the principle of equality of shares in the division of jointly acquired property of spouses. The fact of the presence of children living with the father (on his full support) and the mother, who does not […]